Is it a waste of time to debate of God's existence?

Asked by: 66Piez
  • The discussion never has an ending until one is proven.

    Both sides present arguments: one being a declaration of faith and the other being the observation of study. While both sides can claim to be right (and I'm sorry but science wins very often), there is always one massive flaw in both sides which lead to back and forth bickering. The flaw in religion: Where did the creator come from? This is generally answered with the line "He was always there" but this cannot be because where did the "there" come from, and how did god get to it. The flaw in science: What caused the big bang/the spawn of life/etc.? While science has proved many thing about our universe and what it contains, there are nothing but theories on how most of it arrived. So until one is answered with certainty and with enough evidence to make all people understand it as true, there is no solid winner in the argument. Just people arguing on forums while fapping to jesus/Einstein.

  • Without proof there is nothing to argue either way.

    I may not put this the best way but I'm going to try my best. If there is no proof for either side then why is it being argued. I say let people believe what they want to believe. After all you can not prove what is purely a belief either way.

  • Technically... I would say yes.

    I mean there is no proving the existence of any god or what-not, so the debate is ultimately futile. It's like creating an argument surrounding bigfoot. Anyone arguing entirely for the existence of bigfoot isn't correct and anyone arguing entirely against bigfoot isn't exactly right either. But on the other hand, debating any useless sh** can have a benefit in strengthening one's own beliefs.

  • Look at the comment below from 66Piez.

    The comment basically says everything, but I'm also gonna put part of it here:

    -It's a waste of your time debating over your own belief, of God's existence; stating you own opinions on what you believe, when you don't need to prove in what you believe in.

    :P :) :0

  • In the end, everyone follows their own.

    There are bigger matters to attend to than debating over something we cannot see. We should focus on putting action on worldly problems, it is where our actions actually make a difference in people's lives and alleviate the quality of living. Debating over God's existence will get us nowhere. So what if we prove or disprove God? Will it end pollution, world hunger, AIDS, cancer, poverty, crime?! It is a pointless debate. In the end, everybody will follow what suites their needs most. If it suites a person to think of a spiritual being up above, he will continue to do so. We cannot force our beliefs down anyone's throats.

    Posted by: GKY
  • I say yes,

    Because (as of 2015) you can't prove or disprove god. Besides, what is the nature of this god? Is it happy, caring, and loving? Mad, cold, and vengeful? Or does it not care about you, and just exists, and is the start of all things? And if there isn't a God, why do so many people believe in one, claiming a "personal connections", and other anecdotes. And to call the belief "stupid" all because one can't see it is just plain ignorant, as you may be wrong if there is a God, but that god wanted you to come to him. Again, too many assumptions have to be made, and its just a waste of time. Instead, we could be running tests and exploring further into "the divine" (assuming there is one) to come to a conclusion, rather than having pointless debates. But a debate on religion is another story...

  • No one knows

    The debate about God is a facile one. It is perception base and as such it is impossible prove or disprove. Moreover, if you debate the existence with some who believes they can always fall back to the argument of faith against any evidence against. If you are against God you can never 100% prove that it does not exist unless you are dead, the state beyond full body shut down. Therefore, you are arguing best guess. As such, the debate becomes circular and can never be concluded.

  • Just because you can't see something physically with your own two eyes, doesn't mean it is not there.

    YAHUAH does exist, whether ya'll want to believe it or not. Just because you can't see HIM with your own two eyes, does not mean HE doesn't exist. Can you see the air with your own two eyes? NO, you can only feel it, just like one can feel The Most High's presence. Can you see tiny bacteria that cannot be seen by our own two eyes? NO, you need a microscope to see them. Case in point, just because you cannot see something with your own two eyes, does not mean it is not there or does not exist!

  • You shouldn't debate to prove someone wrong, but to better understand your own position.

    Just because we can't get an answer doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked. Every individual should try and defend their own beliefs in order to strengthen them and get a better understanding of themselves. There are many questions you might not get answers to, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask the question.

  • No change without effort

    If theists think the world would be a better place if everyone agreed with them, then, logically, they would need to take steps to convince people to see it from their side.

    The same goes for atheists.

    Regardless of how futile the debates seem, and how unfruitful they seem to be, people do change. Maybe not the debaters, but the audience (in whatever form). They have been changing. It does make a difference.

  • A strong religious believer will not change their views due to what others say.

    Therefore, yeah... HUGE waste of time. If someone came up to me and started to debate God's existence with me, I would not fight their opinion because that's THEIR opinion. Why should it bother me (unless/until they begin attacking my religion)?
    A strong Catholic, Jew, Hindu or whatever other religious person will not be assimilated by the opinions of others... So what's the point in debating it? Who is the instigator trying to convince? Because I'm going nowhere.

    Posted by: Vz
  • Yes and No.

    Yes, because no matter what, most religious people can't believe that their god is not real. This is because it poses a logical paradox to them. This is because most of them have come to believe they god is just as real as anything else. This means what ever claims that their god may not be real, to them, it must be wrong because it denies a known fact. Many times, this logical paradox lead them to misunderstand what is being said, i.E., humans evolved from monkeys, or the big bang was an explosion. When things that prove something their religion believes is wrong, i.E., the sun revolves around the earth, they tend to claim it the story that claimed those fact incorrect where allegories, or that it is only wrong because it was mans early attempt at knowledge of the universe. Fact is, even if we found proof that their god does not exist, they would still deny it. In a way, it is a waste of time to debate of God's existence because those who believe never will accept their wrong.
    No, because not to would be as if we accept their belief without evidence. There are also a few out there who would see the logic and decide that their god is not real. Seeing that I still have hope for mankind's reason, I don't think it is a waste of time to debate of God's existence.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
AnonyFeline says2015-01-04T12:40:13.977
Probably. There is no empirical way to prove or disprove it. If one exists it is beyond our comprehension, and if one doesn't, we're just flapping our gums or typing away in cyberspace for the sake of argument. It's simply a matter of faith. Not a matter of truth...Not a matter of fact...But faith.

66Piez says2015-01-05T03:22:36.527
I'm not asking, really, do god exist. I'm asking that all the debating on God's existence, is it a waste of you time debating over your own belief; stating you own opinions on what you believe, when you don't need to prove your beliefs.